Spong and the decline of the western church
A friend emailed me a link to Steve Addison’s post on a new report that shows that the Episcopalan diocese of Newark is in serious decline. Bishop Spong until recently was the Bishop of this diocese.
A new report reveals the Episcopal Diocese of Newark, continues to be in serious decline. It’s membership is free-falling at a rate three times the national average for the embattled Episcopal church. Down by 46% since 1972.
Nearly 90 percent of its parishes were founded before 1942, and not a single church has opened in 16 years.
Apparently Episcopalians in Newark are an unfriendly bunch. The report blames them for not welcoming newcomers or discussing their faith enthusiastically.
Denial is a wonderful opiate for a dying institution. It eases the pain that would force it to face reality.
At the heart of the issue for the Diocese is the legacy of it’s former Bishop John Selby Spong.
Dynamic movements are characterized by “engaged orthodoxy”. They hold fast to the faith and adapt to the context.
The truth of God incarnate in Jesus Christ is the foundation for this principle. Radically distinct and radically identified.
I would be reluctant to draw conclusions on Spong or any “liberal” from this report. There are many denominations and churches that are in decline - I think it is too simplistic to point to one element and say aha – this is the cause. Many churches and denominations on the other side of the theological spectrum to Spong are also in decline or have morphed themselves outside of what the mainstream would consider an expression of the body of Christ. While growth may be one indicator of health it is not the only one. Indeed you can have growth while still having a unhealthy church that is not faithful to Jesus.
I don’t agree with everything that Spong writes but I do appreciate his willingness to think and reflect deeply. It seems to me to be counterproductive to make him the symbol of the cause of the decline of the Western Church which is actually happening everywhere. It seems to me to be unhelpful with a heavy dose of scapegoating.
January 25th, 2006 at 8:34 am
In this post, and even with a definition in place, people are still using the same term in different ways. I, too, agree with the things that Alan has mentioned which distance himself from liberalism, but many would still use that label for me.
I appreciate Alan that you think that this is going in a direction that you don’t want to pursue. However, the reason why I have pursued this discussion is not to have an argument on a theoretical view - we do a lot of that here and it is fun. I am not concerned about your personal theological disagreements with people on this thread or in real life.
Rather, as I said earlier, you (Alan) are a leader of a major missional church movement in Australia that purports to be ecumenical, deliberately does not cast itself as a theological educator, but rather a training institution for all of the expressions of the missional church. You are an author and a speaker and are sometimes seen as a representative of the missional church in Australia.
In that context, you are saying that a broad swathe of people in mainstream Christian denominations in Australia don’t have what it takes to be a part of the missional church or are even responsible for the church being in decline. We are not talking about Spongs in some of these statements, but ordinary genuine followers of Christ who you or someone else would say are liberal under your criteria. People who love God. People who take the call of Jesus seriously. People who are looking for a way out of an institutionally bound way of expressing the wonder of the Kingdom of God.
Maybe this is a debate that cannot be resolved. But it is also impliedly a strategic statement about the shape of forge and the missional church in Australia. I don’t think that this is at the core of what forge is about, but it has the potential to piss people off, put people off and close their minds to the other important and challenging stuff that you have to say about missiology and ecclesiology.
To be clear, though I have used myself as an example, it is not really a personal thing. But even I may walk away from some of these statements (particularly if it were without the benefit of a broader discussion like this) and say “Al’s got rocks in his head” and question how this might affect my attitude towards and engagement with forge. But I respect other things you have to say and I am not inclined to infer any undesirable motives. Others who might self-identify as theologically liberal in the broad sense may be less charitable.
January 25th, 2006 at 9:19 am
let see Phil,
Anyone that does not believe in a literal reading of Genesis - a liberal. I don’t understand what this means. if it is implying creationism then no creationists are by definition liberals. They are adding to the bible!
Anyone that advocates that women can be ministers and leaders in our church - a liberal. correct. This directly contradicts the bible
Anyone that doesn’t believe that the sun revolves around the earth - a liberal. Say what. Where is this from?
Anyone that doesn’t believe that Jonah was in the stomach of a big fish for three days - a liberal. Yes this is correct.
Anyone that doesn’t believe that the flood covered the earth and pairs of every animal on earth was squeezed into the ark - a liberal. Yes again correct, well done and getting better.
Lance a conservative? now that is funny.
January 25th, 2006 at 9:57 am
Thanks Dan/Phil for trying to understand where I have come from. I am all too aware of the dangers in such discussions, and hence my retiscence to take it further here. I feel I am being pushed into a corner I don’t neccesarily wish to inhabit. I will say that my prime concern is with the extension of apostolic mission in this land–hence my original post. And we are kidding ourselves if we think that liberal theology doesn’t factor in decline—we really are. We can play fast and loose with the core beliefs of the faith all we want, but we must also realize that this will come with a cost. We do well to heed Archbishop William Temple warning that… “If your conception of God is radically false then the more devout you are the worse it will be for you. You are opening your soul to be moulded by something else. You had much better be an atheist.”
I think we do need to be careful in remaining genuinely faithful to our Founder and the biblical message whilst being radically open and responsive to people and the cultural forces around about us. Its a real tension and we need to live in it but we must not give away the family goodies in trying to compassionately reach people. If we do that, in the end we will have no message at all.
And whilst I and Forge appear to be somewhat merged at times, there is diversity and breadth in the various teams that make up Forge. However I can say on behalf of us all, that we are all committed to an historic orthodox understanding of faith and all that goes with it. I cannot help if that feels to others like we are drawing a line. But to (mis)quote Luther, we can do no other, so help us God.
January 25th, 2006 at 11:12 am
“I think we do need to be careful in remaining genuinely faithful to our Founder and the biblical message whilst being radically open and responsive to people and the cultural forces around about us.”
I agree with this, and Al’s put it well. I also think it’s important to draw lines - which I guess is what I was saying when I compared Spong’s insistence on remaining within episcopalianism to John Howard insisting on remaining in the socialist party (which of course he doesn’t/hasn’t).
While as a Christian I think that Templar’s quote has something to it, I’d also say that the ‘danger’ to mission that liberalism poses has something to do with identity. ‘Drawing lines’ is an important part of having a sense of individual and communal identity. When those lines are blurred, it can be difficult to have a sense of personal or communal mission. I’ve seen this happen in progressive university Christian groups - once people cease to describe themselves as “Christians” or a “Christian group”, they have to search for some other defining feature or reason to gather, and this can be hard to do. They will continue to gather as a group of friends, but may have trouble attracting others, or figuring out what they will actually spend their time doing when they gather. This is part of the importance of constitutions, mission statements etc etc.
January 25th, 2006 at 11:13 am
The inherent difficulty in all these conversations is perpestive. For example, Alan’s comment that “…we are kidding ourselves if we think that liberal theology doesn’t factor in decline—we really are. We can play fast and loose with the core beliefs of the faith all we want, but we must also realize that this will come with a cost. We do well to heed Archbishop William Temple warning that… “If your conception of God is radically false then the more devout you are the worse it will be for you. You are opening your soul to be moulded by something else. You had much better be an atheist.” ” could easily mean that “anyone who doesn’t see these issues the same way as me is not as good a Christian/missionalist/etc etc.”
I don’t think that’s what Alan is trying to say, but pure religion is not right doctrine, but to care for widows and orphans…. These conversations which involve labels are a bit problematic in my view.
January 25th, 2006 at 11:42 am
I do like Bill Temple being quoted against liberal thought.
I don’t know if he would have liked it though.
He was quite good on employment with William Beveridge. And he did resign from the Labour party on becoming bishop.
Quite a complex character. He was a fellow traveller with Phil on the bible though.
January 25th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
“Anyone that doesn’t believe that the flood covered the earth and pairs of every animal on earth was squeezed into the ark - a liberal. Yes again correct, well done and getting better.
Lance a conservative? now that is funny.”
Well….I’m trying to be a good conservative ….really I am….
I’m boycotting the Perth Zoo…because of all the homosexuality that goes on there among the animals.
And I’m trying really hard to understand how the kangaroos got to be on Noah’s Ark….but it’s really difficult because the answersingenesis people are obviously talking bullshit….
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp
January 25th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Just to throw another red herring in-I found it interesting when reading Steve’s original post that the people in the Spong diocese (of course nobody outside his diocese is like this either…) were said to be unfriendly and not-welcoming.
Perhaps that can be attributed to the decline in the churches…
I know most of my friends would base their decision on whether or not to go to church on friendliness rather than the churches stance on the meaning of the cross and resurrection…
January 26th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
At the risk of being labelled a”classical liberal”,”not an honest questioner”,”a full blown liberal”, a believer in “butcher shop theology” or an “arch liberal” I take a hesitant step into the discussion!
First a debate that depends on a newspaper report of a “report” on a blog should at least indicate some caution.
Second it needs to be remembered that Spong began to withdraw from the Diocese in the late 90s and has not been bishop there since that time.Note also the reason for the report.
Third there needs to be some care taken in describing the faith of those with whom we disagree.Cox according to Alan H ” repented of his earlier death of God teaching” and was the “leader of the death of God theology”.Cox would be amused by such a description!!!The essence of “The Secular City” was the search for the answer to the Bonhoeffer question:”How do we speak in a secular fashion of God” No notion of “the death of God”.For those of us who struggled with the challenge of the city, Cox was a needed and provocative thinker.By the way Robinson’s Honest to God,published a couple of years earlier,is not mentioned in Cox’s bibliography
I would be interested to see the source of Alan H’s assertion that Cox then “embraced a Pentecostal reliogisty”.His reflections in “Fire from Heaven”(his book on the rise of pentecostalism and the reshaping of religion in the 21st Cent)are more profound and I assume have not been read by Alan H. The complexity and simplicity of his continuing search for truth in response to whats happening in the world can be found in one of his latter books (Common Prayers:Faith family and a Christians Journey thru the Jewish year).Cox has a Jewish wife and son.
If argument and debate is going to be built around the “sins” or “faith” of others then lets be careful.
But in the end it was on Australia Day 2006 that I discovered that Alan H was right, I’m no more than a clasical,full blown arch liberal, who will be disowned by the missional church.As he notes “an understanding of scripture and its absolute authority defines life and faith in all its aspects” .But Alan I’ve searched high and low but to no avail - frankly there is no biblical authority for eating lamb on Australia day! Should I do it? What will Sam K say? Will he also disown me?